(Emphasis added.) Similar language is found in Eisenberg at page 337 of 225 Md., which in turn is a quotation from the language used by Chief Judge Brune for the Court in District Agency, supra, 224 Md. at 369-370, quoting 1 Poe, Pleading and Practice § 615 (5th ed. Tiffany 1925). A like statement by Chief Judge Boyd for the Court is found in Hinchman v. Johnson, 108 Md. 661, 663-64, 71 A. 424 (1908). An annotation upon the subject of set-off and recoupment appears with Milburn v. Guyther, 8 Gill 92 (1849), in Brantly's edition published in 1885.

Hence, Suburban's counterclaim falls within the description of a claim arising out of the same contract or transaction and was properly allowable by way of recoupment against District Agency suing in its own right. This case is distinguishable from Hinchman v. Johnson, 108 Md. 661, 71 A. 424, where there was a contract for the purchase of a harvesting machine from a manufacturer made through a local sales agent. There the agent later took over the contract by assignment from the manufacturer.

It is well settled, in this State, that in an action of assumpsit, a defendant may, under the general issue, recoup for damages arising from the plaintiff's failure to execute his contract, and may give evidence to show injury on which to found a claim for recoupment, by way of defence. 1 Poe on Pleading, 616; Abbott v. Gatch, 13 Md. 332; Warfield v. Booth, 33 Md. 72; Hinchman v. Johnson, 108 Md. 662; Doggett v. Tatham, 116 Md. 152; Rawlings Co. v. Nash, 117 Md. 393; Gas Light Co. v. Balt. Tar Co., 65 Md. 73, and Biggs v. Langhammer, 103 Md. 96. There were other questions presented in argument and submitted in the briefs, but as they relate to questions and matters that would not reflect upon the decision of the case, or change the result of our conclusion, they will not be discussed by us. All of the material questions, essential to a proper determination of the case, were correctly submitted to the Court, sitting as a jury, for its finding, by the granted prayers.

B.C. A. Rwy. Co. v. Kirby, 88 Md. 409. The fourth prayer of the defendants was likewise defective, and should have been refused, not merely because of its segregation of facts in the case, but because it entirely ignored the probative force of the giving of the notes of July 30th, 1904, and the renewals of them, and violated the principles laid down in such cases as Adler v. Portner Brewing Co., 65 Md. 27, and Hinchman v. Johnson, 108 Md. 661. The appellees claim that the fifth prayer was unobjectionable when taken in connection with the fourth prayer of the plaintiff; but there was nothing in the prayer itself, nor in the simple fact that it was granted, which would indicate to the jury that there was any connection whatever between the two prayers, and the prayer as framed entirely ignores the evidence tending to show that certain of the items for which a set-off was claimed had already been allowed in the adjustment of the accounts between the parties.

never any trouble except the removal of dirt which accumulated around the retorts; that when the notes were sent for execution, defendant said they had consulted their engineer "and found the device was in good working shape;" that the only objection made to the execution of the notes then sent, was that they bore date 30 days after installment as stipulated in the contract, while defendant claimed they should bear date from the time when they determined the device was in good working shape, and the notes were so changed, thereby abating the interest on said notes from November 1st to March 17th, and that the notes were then executed and delivered, and that no complaint was thereafter made until the letter of April 23rd "that some dirt had been blown out of the stack," and that after that letter defendant had no communication with the plaintiff. These facts bring this case distinctly within the rule announced in Adler v. Portner Brewing Co., 65 Md. 27, and so emphatically approved in Hinchman v. Johnson, 108 Md. 661. In Adler v. Portner, which was a case of this character, the defendant, Adler, testified "that he gave his notes in May, 1883, for machinery purchased with warranty in September, 1882, because Portner was threatening to sue him and he did not want to be sued; he wanted time to test the machine; he could find out whether the machine would work or not by the time the first note would mature (four months) and if it would not work he would not pay the notes.